1. THE NATURE OF RELATIONSHIPS IN PUBLIC RELATIONS
- 2 -
1.1 Exploring the context: relationships in public relations
The present paragraph has the aim of introducing the reader to the scholarly
milieu in which relationships study in public relations could emerge and influence
the discipline itself. Accordingly, it will contextualize relationships, by examining
the emergence and the relevance they plays in contemporary public relations.
1.1.1 The emergence of the relational perspective
The notion of relationship within public relations literature is rooted in the
development and establishment of the relational perspective, considered one of
the most intriguing streams of research in public relations by some of the most
prominent scholars of the field (Ledingham and Bruning, 2000a; Sallot, Lyon,
Acosta-Alzuru and Jones, 2003; Botan and Taylor, 2004; Grunig, 2006). The
reason for such an association is that the relational perspective, also called
relationship management, considers relationship as the proper domain of public
relations and holds that public relations is the management function, whose role
regards the building of mutually beneficial relationships between organization and
publics, by means of the balance of their divergent interests and expectations
(Hutton, 1999; Ledingham and Bruning 2000a; Ledingham, 2001; Ledingham,
2003).
The initial seeds for the appearance and growing of the relationship
management perspective were sowed by Ferguson’s (1984) ground-breaking
suggestion that organization-public relationships represent the most productive
focus for theory development and should be the elective core of next public
relations scholarships. Keeping interorganizational relationships theory as a
model, she claimed that (Ferguson, 1984: 19):
By putting the research focus on the relationship rather than on the
organization or on the public, we can come to better understandings of what it is
that is important about these relationships, both to the public and to the
organization. A model that focuses on either the organization or the public assumes
that if and when changes occur either the organization and/or the public must
RETHINKING THE NATURE OF RELATIONSHIPS IN PR. A DIALOGICAL VIEW
- 3 -
change. A relationship-centric model has the assumption that the relationship is the
prime issue of concern, not the parties.
Embedding her proposition in systems theory, she further contended that
understanding communication processes and consequences is not enough in order
to fully grasp the complexity of public relationships. On the contrary, there is also
the need to study publics, organizations and the larger social environment within
which these social units act.
Shortly thereafter, Cutlip, Center and Broom (1985), as cited by Bruning,
Castle and Schrepfer (2004), defined public relations as “the management
function that identifies, establishes, and maintains mutually beneficial
relationships between an organization and the various publics on whom its
success or failure depends” (p. 6). This view of public relations clashes with the
ideas considering corporate communications as symbolic processes for the
construction of reality (Toth and Trujillo, 1987) and the given definition of public
relations as “the management of communication between an organization and its
publics” (Grunig and Hunt, 1984: 6).
In a thematic issue of Public Relations Review, Botan (1993) acknowledged
this “paradigm struggle” when he stated that a clash between divergent
assumptive world views on the nature and the meaning of public relations had
been occurring for some years in the discipline. On the one hand, there is a
practice-oriented and then dominant branch, based on journalistic heritage and
business orientation, whose matter of concern regards the communication process
flowing between organization and publics and its instrumental use for the
exclusive achievement of the corporate mission. On the other hand, a number of
competing theoretical paradigms exist – symmetrical/systems theory,
rhetorical/critical, feminist, social scientific – which, even if using different
arguments, they all criticize the public relations view suggested by the applied
paradigm. Their more theoretical approaches to the discipline conceive public
relations as characterized by a liberal arts mission, instead of a business one, and
address macro-ethical issues that regards its role and contributions to the society
at large. Accordingly, public relations has to be concerned in achieving
1. THE NATURE OF RELATIONSHIPS IN PUBLIC RELATIONS
- 4 -
organizational ends in so far as business is only one component and actor of
society.
In the same vein, Grunig (1993) gave his view of the occurring struggle
from a symmetrical/systems theory perspective distinguishing between symbolic
and behavioral relationships and claiming that public relations become merely
image management if relationship with publics is based only on punctual
symbolic communication, and not on ongoing behavior; “for public relations to be
valued by the organizations it serves, practitioners must be able to demonstrate
that their efforts contribute to the goals of these organizations by building long-
term relationships with strategic publics” (p. 136).
Grunig L. and J. and Ehling (1992) reflected this thinking in their definition
of public relations as an excellence practice if it reconciles multiple publics’
expectancies by building quality, mutually beneficial, long-term relationships.
Moreover, the symmetrical model advanced by Grunig and Hunt (1984) was
instrumental in shifting the emphasis from manipulation to the notion of benefit
for both organization and publics, so laying the foundations of the relational
perspective (Ledingham, 2003). Ehling (1992) confirmed this feeling when he
states that a change of perspective in the primary mission of public relations
theory – from manipulation of public opinion toward a focus on building,
nurturing and maintaining relationships – was happening. Broom and Dozier
(1990) recognized the central role of relationship in public relations and the
consequent need to measure it as part of public relations audit, by means of a
coorientational approach and noted (1990: 40): “Conceptually, public relations
programs affect the relationship between organizations and their publics, but
rarely is program impact on the relationships themselves measured”.
Heath (2001a) and Botan and Taylor (2004) finally substantiated a solution
to the paradigm struggle when they stated that a shift has occurred in the nature
and objective of public relations discipline. From an activity mostly aimed at
engineering consent through the management of the image or reputation of an
organization, public relations come to be definitely framed within a cost-reduction
RETHINKING THE NATURE OF RELATIONSHIPS IN PR. A DIALOGICAL VIEW
- 5 -
paradigm, which entails the building of long-term mutually beneficial
relationships as a guarantee for the generation of future revenues (Heath, 2001a).
In this sense, publics have not to be considered means to achieve organizational
mission, but partners and co-creators of shared meanings in the milieu of ongoing
relationships (Botan and Taylor, 2004). Although both of these approaches still
exist in the broad field of corporate communication (see for instance Van Riel,
1995; Fombrun, 1996; Hutton, 1999; Yang and Grunig, 2005), the building of
mutually beneficial relationships has become an essential and distinctive feature
of the public relations field.
Since the notion of public relations as a management function aimed at
building mutually beneficial relationships gained ground, a need for a fully
explicated and shared definition of organization-public relationships was
advanced. Broom, Casey and Ritchey (1997) warned that its absence eventually
precludes the development of measures of relationships. Even though a
conceptual and operational definition of organization-public relationships were
not provided by the authors, their call for a shared definition of organization-
public relationship as a construct both sanctioned the status and relevance of the
relational perspective in public relations literature and gave an impetus for future
research in the area
1
.
1.1.2 The relevance of relationships in public relations discipline
According to Burrel and Morgan (1979), cited by Botan and Taylor (2004),
every discipline can be scanned following three angles: the ontological (the
essence of a phenomenon), the epistemological (what grounds knowledge) and the
axiological (what is valued) ones. Endorsing relationship phenomena as proper
domains of public relations, the relational perspective shows its relevance for the
discipline, since it tackles and informs all the three levels advanced by Burrel and
1 A review of the current status of research around the concept of relationships in public
relations will be addressed in the paragraph 1.3.
1. THE NATURE OF RELATIONSHIPS IN PUBLIC RELATIONS
- 6 -
Morgan (1979). From the ontological side, the relational perspective calls into
question the essence of public relations itself because it guides the conceptual
shift from public relations understood as consent engineering through
communication techniques to public relations defined as management function
building mutually beneficial organization-public relationships by means of
substantial behavior and communication (Ledingham and Bruning, 2000a; Heath,
2001a; Botan and Taylor, 2004). In this stage of development, the benefits are
generated for both sponsoring organizations and publics and the societies those
organizations serve (Ledingham and Bruning, 2000a). From the epistemological
standpoint, the relational perspective consequently requires the conceptualization
of organization-public relationship as the logical and major object of inquiring
and theorizing about public relations (Ferguson, 1984; Broom, Casey and Ritchey,
1997). Previously, application and practice topics, such as communication
management, were the primary foci of analysis (Ferguson, 1984; Botan, 1993).
Finally, from an axiological point of view, considering relationship with publics
as the main unit of analysis implies that the effective creation, development, and
maintenance of mutually beneficial organization-public relationships is the
benchmark for “healthy” public relations, i.e. an indicator of public relations
effectiveness (Broom and Dozier, 1990; Ledingham and Bruning, 1998). As a
consequence, long-term two-way symmetrical methods of measurement of
relationship themselves have to replace short-term one-way asymmetrical
measurements of communication outputs and outcomes (Hon and Grunig, 1999;
Grunig and Huang, 2000).
1.2 Theoretical roots and frameworks
To explore and analyze the notion of relationships in public relations
specifically, it is worth beginning with the discussion of the theoretical roots
underpinning organization-public relationships conceptualization and evaluating
how these influenced current organization-public relationships study, in terms of
assumptions and principles. The study of relationships in public relations has
RETHINKING THE NATURE OF RELATIONSHIPS IN PR. A DIALOGICAL VIEW
- 7 -
developed around definite and consistent thoughts and theories. In this regard,
since systems theory, interpersonal communication and interorganizational
relationships disciplines play a pivotal role in the conceptualization of relationship
in public relations field, the aim of this paragraph is to analyze those theoretical
fields in depth and relate them to organization-public relationships and public
relations.
1.2.1 Systems theory and the concept of organization-public
relationships
As we will see in the part on the status of organization-public relationships
conceptualization (paragraph 1.3), it can be anticipated that systems theory is the
overall theoretical framework underpinning all scholars’ contributions within the
relational perspective. Accordingly, the link between public relations and systems
theory is well-established, with the latter informing the former’s essence with its
key implication: the necessity of managing the relationships with the
environment. Put differently, public relations and systems theory share the
institutionalization of interdependence, as the main and characterizing rationale
behind both of the theories.
Systems theory, firstly applied to public relations by Cutlip and Center
(1952) and cited for instance by Broom, Casey and Ritchey (1997), is essentially
concerned with problems of interdependence rather than with the constant
attributes of objects (Bertalanffy, 1972; Littlejohn, 1999a) and entails that
understanding social systems necessitates “tracing the pattern of energy exchange
or activity of people as it results in some output and ascertaining how the output is
translated into energy which reactivates the pattern” (Katz and Kahn, 1965, p. 18).
Accordingly, organizations are living systems embedded in a larger system (the
environment) in its turn comprising other subsystems, each composed by “a set of
interacting units that endures through time within an established boundary by
responding and adjusting to change pressures from the environment to achieve
and maintain goal states” (Cutlip, Center and Broom, 2000: 229). Consequently,
1. THE NATURE OF RELATIONSHIPS IN PUBLIC RELATIONS
- 8 -
systems theory posits relationships as the necessary foci of analysis (being them
within or outside the organizational system), and the maintenance of an
equilibrium state with the environment as a critical outcome for organizations to
survive (Grunig and Hunt, 1984; Grunig L. and J. and Ehling, 1992; Everett,
1993; Cutlip, Center and Broom, 2000).
Theorists usually identify systems as closed or open. In closed systems, the
boundary between other subsystems in the environment is sealed, and reciprocal
adjustment does not happen because the primary emphasis is on maintaining the
status quo (Grunig and Hunt, 1984; Cutlip, Center and Broom, 2000; Hung,
2001). In open systems, resources are exchanged with other subsystems through a
permeable boundary in order to respond and adjust structures and processes to
both negative and positive feedback coming from the environment (Grunig and
Hunt, 1984; Cutlip, Center and Broom, 2000; Hung, 2001). Here, the primary goal
is to evolve symbiotically with the environment and maintain a homeostatic
equilibrium. This last view caught the essence of relational perspective and of
public relations in general, because entails public relations as a management
function, responsible for managing relationships between an organization and the
publics of its environment (Everett, 1993). More specifically, public relations is
recognized as a boundary spanning function within the organization, whose role is
to reciprocally adapt the organization and the environment, in order to maintain a
dynamic organizational equilibrium (Grunig and Hunt, 1984; Cutlip, Center and
Broom, 2000). To reach such a goal, public relations develops and grows
mutually beneficial relationships with other systems in the environment and lets
organization limit the loss of autonomy implied in the idea of interdependence,
fundamental tenet of systems theory (Grunig L. and J. and Ehling, 1992). Indeed,
given the condition of mutual dependence and influence necessarily experienced
by organizations, it turns out that mutual adaptation by means of mutual beneficial
relationships is the sole rational and effective from an evolutionist point of view
behavior. “To paraphrase Darwin, it is not the powerful organizations that will
survive in the new millennium, it is those able to adjust and adapt to a changing
world” (Cutlip, Center and Broom, 2000: 220).
RETHINKING THE NATURE OF RELATIONSHIPS IN PR. A DIALOGICAL VIEW
- 9 -
In sum, systems theory provides the rationale for the relational perspective –
and so the idea that public relations deals with the relationships built and
maintained with publics by organizations – because institutionalizes
interdependence as a fundamental character of organizational life and imposes the
maintenance of a dynamic equilibrium through mutual beneficial relationships
with publics as a necessary goal for organization survival.
1.2.2 Interpersonal communication
2
theory, social exchange
approaches and the concept of organization-public
relationships
The contribution of interpersonal communication theory to the relational
perspective and to the concept of relationship is only one of the many attempts
reflecting the vitality of the fusion between public relations and interpersonal
communication (Sallot, 1997; Coombs, 2001). As it will be showed in the next
paragraph 1.3, the many contributions taken from interpersonal communication
are all inspired by the social exchange theory. For this reason, the present
paragraph will try to uncover more specifically the social exchange principles as
applied to the study of relationship phenomena in the interpersonal
communication context. In this way, we can come to a closer understanding of the
particular kind of relationship that develops between organizations and publics.
Social exchange is a rule-based theory conceiving social behavior among
people as an exchange that operates along with economical/monetary exchange
principles (Wood, 1995; Littlejohn, 1999b). The theory assumes that the parties
engaged in a relationship analyze each other’s behavior making a cost-benefit
analysis, in order to minimize their own costs and maximize their own rewards
and learn, and define and negotiate common rules prescribing which requirements
must be followed to nurture a relationship and what constitutes positive or
2 As in public relations literature, the present work uses the sole name of “interpersonal
communication” to refer to both interpersonal communication and social and personal
relationships disciplines.
1. THE NATURE OF RELATIONSHIPS IN PUBLIC RELATIONS
- 10 -
negative communication (Stafford and Canary, 1991; Dindia and Canary, 1993;
Wood, 1995; Littlejohn, 1999b; Harvey and Wenzel, 2006). Consequently,
relationships are maintained as long as each party rewards exceed each party
costs, because participants commit to the relationship with both material (e.g.
time, energy, money) and symbolic resources (e.g. intimacy, love), and expect
reciprocation of such investments. In addition to increased investments, satisfied
relational partners become interdependent in terms of how they achieve their
future goals, how they co-ordinate their behavioral routines (Kelley and Thibaut,
1978, cited by Stafford and Canary, 1991) and the amount and quality of
information exchanged (Burgoon and Hale, 1984; Littlejohn, 1999b). Put
differently, through communication processes and resources, the partners
demonstrate one another which goals are appropriate and negotiate the amount of
each kind of action each believes is necessary for the relationship to grow.
In interpersonal communication discipline, social exchange approach has
traditionally been declined in two perspectives: the equity theory and the
interdependence theory (Wood, 1995; Hung, 2005b; Harvey and Wenzel, 2006).
As far as the equity theory is concerned, Canary and Stafford (2001), cited in
Harvey and Wenzel (2006), affirm that an equitable relationship is one in which
the ratio of outcomes divided by inputs are equal for both parties. At the base of
this rule there is the principle of distributive justice that, as introduced by Homans
(1958), assumes that people seek for fair relationships occurring when each party
outcomes are maximized, participants consciously reward those who treat them
equitably and punish those who treat them inequitably, inequality leads to distress,
and people will attempt to restore equity as a result of distress due to inequality
(Walster and Berscheid, 1978, cited by Canary and Stafford, 1992). According to
Roloff (1987), cited by Heath (2000), negotiated norms in a relationship can
prescribe whether reciprocity must be based on the exchanging of resources being
either the same or merely similar and worth either equally or equivalently.
Interdependence theory shares the assumption that every individual enters
and stays in any relationship only as long as it is adequately satisfactory in terms
of reciprocal rewards and costs (e.g. Thibaut and Kelley, 1959; Kelley, 1979) with
Ricevi informazioni sui nostri servizi, sulle offerte e non perdere news e consigli su università e lavoro.
